Not really. I care for the life of the unborn, but I recognize circumstances in which the rights of the mother may outweigh those of the unborn.
I said rape and life-threatening pregnancies, not rape and incest.
In any case, I don’t see what’s so impossible to understand. I believe there’s a weighing of rights at play here. A person whose rights were violated in the creation of the pregnancy (i.e. rape) has some right to reclaim their own destiny. A person who willingly enters into a situation in which pregnancy is a reasonable outcome gives up that right, in my mind. It may be an uncommon point of view, but it’s not impossible to grasp.
Lots of right wingers who are adamantly opposed to abortion support capital punishment because it “protects society.” Some of these same types also supported our “pre-emptive” war against Iraq because they had the potential to do us harm.
So to put it in more acceptable terms for you, think of abortion as a “pre-emptive death penalty.”
I’d like to know if the pro-abortionists would think it ok if the aborted foetus matter were used as raw material in industry production, in e.g. cosmetics.
I think it’s impossible (actually illegal I think) in Denmark for the mother(?)to get handed over the foetus after abortion – now it’s thrown out and destroyed with the rest of the hospital rubbish. However some women have expressed a wish to have the aborted foetus buried afterwards (because she had second thoughts afterwards I hope). Do you find anything wrong with the mother wanting the foetus buried?
It’s also true that a lot of left wingers want to protect the guilty, including murderers, from the death penalty, but are fine if fetuses, who have not harmed anyone and are guilty of nothing, are killed/destroyed.
I’ll call myself a Pro-Abortionist the day you call yourself Anti-Choice. :rolleyes:
As far as I’m concerned you can do whatever you want with the fetus as long as it doesn’t raise public health issues. If you want to bury it, or use it in cosmetics, or make soap, or keep it in a Formaldahyde Jar in your living room as a conversation piece that’s fine with me.
I have no objection to that. I think if pro-lifers were consistant in their beliefs, they should hold funerals for miscarriages too.
So, if it is shown that if we allow women to kill their newborn babies, up to 1 year old, will reduce the crime rate and give us a “social benefit” of $30 billion annually, would that make it OK?
Of course not!
So, the “social benefit” of abortions is irrelevant if you think it is murder. If you don’t think it is murder, it is still irrelevant, since you will support abortions anyway. So the “social benefit”, as an argument, is irrelevant to both sides of the issue.
I’m going to give my disclaimer before going into some arguments:
-I’m “fine” with abortion, not for moral reasons or legal reasons, but for economic reasons. Most of the people that get abortions are people that cannot properly plan out their lives and make stupid irrational mistakes. These are people that will raise bad children or who will be put on welfare because of children. Their killing a fetus before it is born works out better for me than any other option I can see. So for that reason I am fine with it.
However, a lot of the arguments I see on this thread have logical holes and loopholes in them so large I could drive a truck through. And I’m simply going to be engaging in some “intellectual exercise” in contesting them, with the condition that I’ve made my opinions known on abortion once, they are fairly bland and apathetic, and there’s nothing to be gained from debating them.
The comparison to pigs and other animals is bankrupt intellectually. Governments are instituted among men for certain reasons, protection of life is one of said reasons. And in government, it is obvious the life in question is human life. That is why a fetus (I’m going to use the correct American/non-British loser spelling) and most especially a young child has a much better argument for protection under our laws than a pig does. Here in the United States nowhere in our constitution does it say the protections of government are only going to be applied to those “intellectually competent” enough. Obviously, some of the privileges of citizenship like voting or freedom of person can and will be restrained from someone who is extremely mentally handicapped, but not life itself.
If I was to lay a “moral” line down, I’d say that an unborn shouldn’t be killed after it has developed enough that it can survive outside of the womb (using whatever technology is available.) Again however, if you reference to my disclaimer you would see I’m not in favor of mass saving embyros and trying to incubate them.
In response to the “theoretical” argument and flaming of “god.” I’m fairly certain with references to pearly white gates and et cetra it was the Christian god that was being spoken to. If we’re going to theorize the existence of the Christian god, we have to apply the logic of the bible. Which clearly states god’s presence is so overpowering that one cannot look at it nor is one capable of much rational thought in his presence, let alone being able to rev up a flame war with him.
I don’t know where you guys learned biology, but cloning doesn’t work by scraping off skin cells and then dipping them into a “Clonemax 9000” hitting “GO” and watching a baby pop out. Need a bit more specific pieces of biological material than that (a cell nucleus, an donor egg, can’t quite cut it by just cutting off a leg and handing it to a doctor and proclaiming “clone me baby.”)
A sperm is not a tadpole (or polliwog, for the weirdos). They may look like tadpoles, but tadpoles are baby frogs/toads, they are organisms that exist at the macroscopic level outside of other organisms, and they also aren’t one half-set of DNA, either.
“How can you support abortion in the case of rape but not in other cases, it makes no sense?”
I can explain this one. There are people that believe abortion is unacceptable because it is just an “easy way out” for people who cannot live with the consequences of their decisions (in this case, having sex) however, if you didn’t decide to have sex, then that aspect is no longer legitimate.
Laws shouldn’t be influenced by morality.
Morality is simply a sytem of ideas of right and wrong conduct. Some people confuse the term morality with “values” or any other word.
Morality always governs what society sets up as laws. Murder is illegal for moral reasons, in the grand scheme of things, some murders do more harm than good (say if you murder a homeless person). Laws are always created by the morals of society, when you say that morality destroys the rights of the minority, well, sometimes. But only if the minority has a different set of morals. Morals are different in different places and different times, so laws are different accordingly. In the United States we try to recognize “basic morals” that we believe are appropriate regardless of culture/time (right to life, libery ad infinitum) we believe in a set of morals that we profess (or more correctly, Locke professes) to be “ultimate morals, applicable to all” that we deem “natural rights.”
People say abortion is okay because the aborted fetus is not a life.
Well, again, the definition of life is highly subjective, not objective. The argument that “it couldn’t survive without the woman” is intellectually irrelevant. An infant cannot survive if it’s mother doesn’t want it to anymore than a fetus can. Yet it is illegal to kill an infant. Every argument about why a fetus should have no rights can be applied with equal logic to an infant. The only explanation as to why we don’t kill infants is because, obviously, our morality prevents it. Just as our morality dictates all laws.
So in my opinion, if the public votes abortion down, then fine with it, it is something that exists as solely a reflection on societal morality. And can be destroyed if morality sways the other way.
“I don’t get how you can believe in the immortal soul and still be pro abortion.”
That’s the easiest one. Immortal soul means the soul cannot die. Why do you care at all if it is just shedding it’s mortal shell?
And if you shot someone in the street you would be committing an illegal act, guru. Murder is illegal. However, the law of the land at this time is, abortion is NOT illegal. Now, if you can convince a majority of Americans that it SHOULD be illegal, and if you can get the government to reverse itself and vote to MAKE it illegal, then you might be onto something. Good luck trying.
Yes, things change don’t they. In ‘the old days’ women had to go to dentists or butchers when they wanted to have an abortion, or some other back alley quack, because it was illegal…but even so, some women were desparate enough to risk life and limb to be rid of a child. Society saw that horror and corrected things. In the older days, it wasn’t uncommon for a child to be left out in the elements to die, or dropped down a well. Nice, ehe? Society changes and progresses.
Today its considered illegal to beat a child as you are describing and society can and will take your children from you for it. Thats what society has deemed to be the correct response. Society has ALSO deemed that a woman has the right to make the decision of whether or not to carry a child to term, and that its perfectly legal for her to do so. So, you can wave your hands about all you like and build strawman after strawman to your hearts content. But again the two situations are different by the fact that one is legal…and one is not.
See, personal choice also has to take into account the laws and customs/mores of a society. d_redguy went this tact with his strawman about shooting. You went this way with the beating. Problem is, both acts are illegal, so if you choose to excersize your personal choice in such a fucked up manner, you will be (rightly) arrested and (hopefully) meet up with a guy named bubba who wants to be your very good friend.
-XT
p.s. Personally I never see the point of dragging out this debate. Its clear that the folks on the anti-abortion side think the way they do and will be unmoved by any rational arguement…they know what they know and are immune to arguement.
Its also clear that the pro-choice side also feels the way they do, and will be equally unmoved by counter arguements. We could go on for page after page (look up the question on past threads for an example of this) without getting anywhere.
And in the end, its moot, as it IS legal in the US for a woman to make a choice reguarding her own body and whether or not to carry a child to term. Its also highly unlikely that will ever change again in the US, despite vigorous attacks by the anti-abortion side…IMO at least.
Right. That’s the point I am trying to make. Illegal. It. Abortion. Should be. What are we debating again?
Right. OK. That’s what I thought.
Straw Man. Those words. You keep saying them. I do not think they what you think they mean. If anything, I would be making a false analogy. But I am not. Because I am arguing that abortion should be illegal. I am not making an analogy to murder. I think abortion is murder. No, it does not fit the legal definition. But that is what we are debating, silly!
Funny, I was just about to characterize you just the same way. Just to show that I am capable of some rational argument, here is another interesting link, with a corresponding quote:
But I am sure that said “thing” is just “tissue” no different than a cancer or some muscles in your leg. Is this “thing” human? I don’t rightly know. Prove that it ain’t. Then I will switch sides. But I’ll err on the side of caution, and call killing that “thing” murder.
Oh, and don’t look at the pictures on that website. Fetuses look disturbingly “human” at 12 weeks, and I wouldn’t want to weaken any pro-choicer’s resolve.
Economic Left/Right -0.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritian -3.33, same quadrant as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I’ve always thought of myself as part of the “Radical Middle”.
Abortion is one good example of where I do walk the middle of the road. I believe abortion is always morally wrong. I also believe it must remain legal and I’m willing to do what little I can to keep it that way. Last winter, when I was unemployed, if I’d become pregnant, I would have had an abortion because my finances were such that I would not have been able to support myself for the nine months it would take for the child to be born and I’m reasonably sure that facing that reality would have placed me at a very high risk for suicide. As it was, being out of work for six months had me at some risk of it. Fortunately, I suppose, there was no one in my life with whom I was willing and able to have sex and, even if there had been, we would have talked about it before doing anything which would result in pregnancy and taken steps to make the possibility of pregnancy as unlikely as possible.
Frankly, I do not believe it’s the government’s business whether I do or do not choose to have an abortion, just as I don’t believe it’s the government’s business whether I do or not choose to have sex, assuming all parties involved in the sex are consenting adults. I’m inclined to believe divorce is morally wrong. Should divorce, therefore, be illegal?
I very much believe in the existence of the soul. I also know that a human egg is fertilized before it implants in the womb. Someone I know had two ectopic pregnancies. If life begins at conception, ending those pregnancies were abortions and two human souls were destroyed. From what I know of where we stand with technology, it’s not currently possible to allow an ectopic pregnancy to continue to the point where the embryo can survive without killing the mother. I don’t know when ensoulment occurs. I know beliefs about that have changed over the centuries, but a lot of things have changed over the centuries, and I’m very glad some of them have changed. Because I don’t know, I have no moral or legal right to impose my views on others. I’m also not good with kids or babies, and I’ve had no desire to be a mother. It is no more right for me dismiss the desperate yearning some women have for a child or the guilt they may feel for having aborted a child than it is for them to tell me that wanting children is part of being female.
Like I said, radical center. I don’t have the answer, therefore, I don’t believe the government should force someone else’s answer on me or others. I said I don’t believe in divorce. A very dear friend of mine is facing just that prospect. I believe he’s doing all he can to avoid it, therefore, I will support him, even though we both wish this weren’t happening. So with abortion. I’m going to be shamelessly egotistical and lift something I said in the BBQ Pit a few weeks ago, since I don’t think I can say it as well this morning: I would love to see a day when no one ever has another abortion. The problem is, for me, the only ethical way for that to come about for there to be a day when no one ever had an unwanted pregnancy. Until that time, I will remain firmly and adamantly pro-choice, even though it’s a choice I hope no one ever has to make.
Polerius, you’re not allowed to quote someone in a manner that misrepresents their position. I’m cutting you some slack here because you may have just misread what the poster was saying (frankly, I interpreted the same way you did on my first read-through) but Martin Hyde is saying the arguments against abortion are bland and apathetic, not his opinions.
I don’t care what’s legal today, the purpose is to change what will be legal in the future. Of course we should all obey the laws in whatever society we find ourselves in, but we should also be striving to change the laws to make the society a better place.
Currently, there are about 1 million abortions in the U.S. per year (check cdc.gov).
While I don’t want to make all abortions illegal, I think a society in which we have much fewer abortions per year will be a better society.
Also, regarding child-beating, what I was trying to say, because it looks like you missed it, is that, just like parents in the old days were mistaken in believing their children had no rights, and that they could beat them, so today’s parents who think that fetuses have no rights and they can abort them are mistaken.
You are narrowly looking at what is legal and acceptable today and think that this is the final state of humanity and we will not progress. If you take the long view, you will see that humans in the beginning considered the rights of rich men. Then they added more and more classes of people that had rights: women, poor people, people of other races, children, etc, and laws were made to make sure those rights were respected.
So, what I was arguing is that next in this progression could be fetuses. May never happen, but it is possible.
In your next reply (if there is one), try to use the word ‘strawman’ as many times as possible. You might convince someone :rolleyes:
Sorry if I misread the post, but after reading it again, it still seems that the most possible meaning of the sentence is that he finds his opinions bland and apathetic. Also, he later mentions
which indicates that his feelings on the issue are not that strong. I assume that someone who “Strongly Disagrees” with something would feel a bit stronger about a change in the law that goes against their position.
In any case, if I have misread the post I apologize.
BTW, I always try and get back to people that directly quote me or ask me questions when I notice them. I have no reason to run from this thread, though I see it as pointless as its a matter of opinion, with the ‘morals’ being of a personal nature, and highly variable.
Look, it was you and d_redguy why brought up the false analogies about doing illegal things and comparing them to abortion. Wasn’t me. I was simply responding to it. Currently abortion is legal, and beating your children or randomly shooting someone in the street is not. So its a false comparison (not really a strawman) of personal choice. Get it?
Then if society deems it something it WANTS to change, it will. There are a lot of things society deems wrong or illegal that I don’t agree with, but I have to respect the wishes of the majority until the public will on those subjects changes. As a good citizen I can strive for change, but I have to respect societies current stances on things and work within that frame.
I have no problem with people who feel deep moral convictions about abortion striving to change the laws. Thats what a free society and a democracy is all about. If they use peaceful means and if, when their position is defeated they understand and abide by societies decision, but continue to strive through accepted means to agitate for change, I have nothing but respect for them while still disagreeing on their stance.
However the anti-abortion crowd, at least its lunitic fringe, seems incapable of abiding by societies decision on this, and resort to unlawful means in many cases (i.e. firebombing abortion clinics, preventing women from going in, even killing in some cases). Sure, they ARE the lunitic fringe so I suppose its understandable. However, the vast majority of anti-abortion people I’ve met (including some in this thread) also try to play the moral superiority card. It would be different if the anti-abortion crowd was equally a fervent on what happens to the babies AFTER they were born as they are before, but generally they aren’t.
And thats the annoying part to the constantly throwing of ‘morals’ in the face of folks that disagree with their definitions (or like me who think that the exact status of a fetus with respect to whether its ‘alive’ or not is irrelevant), especially in light of some of their other stances on the taking of life. As I’ve said before, on a personal level I’m against abortion. However I’m fiercely in favor of personal choice and responsibility.
Yes, I’m well aware of what a strawman is. I’m also aware that I’ve used it a bit loosely in this thread, but didn’t really feel the energy to go into shade of grey with false analogy and hyperbolic language. Sorry btw to you and Pol for throwing ‘strawman’ around so much in this thread.
Ok, so we are debating if abortion should be legal or not. However, it breaks down to your personal vision/conviction (i.e. that abortion is ‘murder’) and mine, that it isn’t. We can both yammer on for page after page, but in the end you will remain convinced that a fetus is a thinking human being with a right to life, and I won’t be disputing this or agreeing with it as for me its irrelevant…because a fetus is part of a womans body until birth separates them into to distinct entities (and there after society has some say in the matter). Until that separation the fetus is part of the womans body and therefore subject to her decisions. Any other take on this makes a woman a virtual slave to whats growing inside of her.
If we ever get to the point that babies can be grown without a female host you might have a better point in my eyes. Until that time, whats happening INSIDE your body is your business and not societies.
There’s a reason I gave the disclaimer at the beginning buddy. You’re not pointing anything out to anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that I just couldn’t give a damn what happens to a bunch of unborn babies. In fact I don’t give a damn about what happens to most people in general besides number one.
No, Polerius has it right. My person opinions on abortion are bland and apathetic. I just do not care from a moral standpoint, is mainly the point I was making.
I disagree with making abortion illegal because it would result in more trouble than anything, and as a conservative I tend to look for stability in the world.
Also another point.
Society never agreed that abortion was legal, 9 men in Washington did.
I should also mention that I always tend to go towards the strong ends of the test, that’s just how I take them. It’s rare that I “agree” or “disagree” I tend to do things completely, and not waffle on the middle. Even if I only “disagree” it’s just my nature to clikc “strongly disagree” if you’re wanting to know the reason for my choice.
I’m also aware that I’ve used it a bit loosely in this thread, but didn’t really feel the energy to go into shade of grey with false analogy and hyperbolic language. Sorry btw to you and Pol for throwing ‘strawman’ around so much in this thread.